EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/95.lightwave-10/001525_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Fri Oct 27 16:56:19 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-11-07 | 2KB

Received: by mail.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA284668179; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 16:56:19 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from access5.digex.net by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA284608172; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 16:56:12 -0700
Received: (from davep@localhost) by access5.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16028 ; for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 19:49:14 -0400
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 19:49:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Paige <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GLOW and FIELD RENDERING QUESTION
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk



On Fri, 27 Oct 1995 [e-mail] wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Robert Cohen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >My original point, was that since the human eye cannot detect an on to
> >off sequence of light (or image) which is faster than one tenth of a
> >second,
>
>     This has got to be wrong, since I and many/most of my colleagues have no
> problem seeing "flash frames" in the edit suite, and they are only 1/30th of
> a second.
>
>
> >Robert Cohen <[e-mail]> sent this message.

I believe that it is you who are wrong. The reason you 'notice' flash
frames is because they have nothing to do with the previous image so they
become much more noticeable. Persistence of vision does not imply that
you won't notice a very different frame at 30 frames per second. Film is
only 24 frames per second at it works as well.

Dave Paige

--
Dave Paige <[e-mail]> sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]